Re: [git patch] free_irq() fixes

[Jeff Garzik]

Alan Cox wrote:
> Sparc32 had this and it was very ugly. However if you don't pass in the
> IRQ then people will store the irq value privately and things like
> request_irq can deal with numeric interrupts and the like as before while
> new interfaces for MSI can deal in MSI objects whatever they end up like.


Yes, and on a related note...

_Today_ drivers _already_ store the irq value privately, because they must:

Logic dictates they must do so because all other functions in the driver 
do not have an 'irq' argument, but do need to call things (free_irq, 
disable_irq) that take an irq number argument.

That is one of my key design objections to passing 'int' to an irq handler:

Every modern driver _must_ store the irq value anyway -- and typically 
this is done automatically in struct device or struct pci_dev resources, 
so the driver writer need not bother with storing it themselves.

	Jeff




--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/